*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7047
    • View Profile
Re: LGBTQIAA
« Reply #20 on: October 30, 2015, 04:56:07 PM »
At what point during decomposition does a dead person cease to be a person?

Probably right around the time their family stops scavenging their belongings like angry vultures.

e.g. 3 years-ish.

*

Offline Particle Person

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2867
  • born 2 b b&
    • View Profile
Re: LGBTQIAA
« Reply #21 on: October 30, 2015, 05:24:35 PM »
At what point during decomposition does a dead person cease to be a person?

Probably right around the time their family stops scavenging their belongings like angry vultures.

e.g. 3 years-ish.

Nice sane opinion!
Your mom is when your mom and you arent your mom.

*

Offline Tintagel

  • *
  • Posts: 531
  • Full of Tinier Tintagels
    • View Profile
Re: LGBTQIAA
« Reply #22 on: October 30, 2015, 07:45:01 PM »
2. Dead people aren't people. They are dead. They are no more people than a pork chop is a pig. They are just a body. You don't need consent from a fleshlight, why should you need it from a dead body?

Actually dead people are people. Luckily, as a sane person, other sane people agree with me, and therefore me saying they are still people is correct, while what you're saying remains to be nonsense.

At what point during decomposition does a dead person cease to be a person?

Depends whether you like your sexual partners firm or soft 'n juicy, I suppose.

*

Offline Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 592
    • View Profile
Re: LGBTQIAA
« Reply #23 on: October 30, 2015, 10:19:34 PM »
My view is that the state needs to stop regulating private sexual matters altogether, except where it stands to do harm to others (such as reproductive incest, where the child is at higher risk of genetic problems). I don't really care if that makes me an Ally or not.

Good enough for me, and I agree.

Don't force my views into your boxes.

*

Offline Ghost Spaghetti

  • *
  • Posts: 908
  • Don't look in that mirror. It's absolutely furious
    • View Profile
Re: LGBTQIAA
« Reply #24 on: November 04, 2015, 11:59:49 PM »
Okay, Thork, I'll break your first post down, if that's ok?

Quote
There is no s. Straight isn't recognised.

Straight isn't a minority sexual identity. What additional rights would you like for straights? Most, if not all the other letters are fighting for the right to be treated like a cisgendered straight person.

Quote
There is also no p. Peadophiles aren't allowed despite being a minority group that is attracted to children.

As others have said, consent.

Quote
There is no n. You can't join if you are attracted to dead people albeit that you are also a minority who is discriminated against.

If you're just continuin g to have sex with the corpse of your loved one, would that be necrophilia? You were attracted to the person, not just the fact that they're dead. If you're having sex with dead people who are just dead people, then you answered your question (in a way) later on when you said that the body belongs to you. You're abusing a body which doesn't in any way belong to you and you have no permission to abuse.

Quote
There isn't another 'i' for incestuous. You and a relative can be deeply in love, heavily discriminated against and these people don't care.

Are there many people who are exclusively attracted to their relatives because they're relatives? If not, then they're not a seperate sexual identity. However, if there are, I imagine that the numbers are so small that they simply haven't applied to join.

Quote
There is no additional b. Fancying a sheep is also way out of bounds. Wanting to mutilate your own penis is fine, wanting to play red rocket with the family dog is out.

Consent.

Quote
There is also no b for bigamy. You're welcomed if you like both men and women, but not if you like both at the same time.

Bigamy isn't a separate sexual identity. There are plenty of people who are in polyamorous relationships of all kinds. Some are gay, some are straight, some are bi. You fancy each person in that group, not the group itself.

Quote
Who the hell decides what kind of sexual deviance is ok

Society. And the standards have obviously changed. Time was, an interracial relationship was tabboo - or an inter-class relationship.



*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9923
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: LGBTQIAA
« Reply #25 on: November 05, 2015, 07:17:14 AM »
Quote
There isn't another 'i' for incestuous. You and a relative can be deeply in love, heavily discriminated against and these people don't care.

Are there many people who are exclusively attracted to their relatives because they're relatives? If not, then they're not a seperate sexual identity. However, if there are, I imagine that the numbers are so small that they simply haven't applied to join.
Why is exclusivity a factor? As a filthy bisexual, I will (in principle, at least) entertain the possibility of sexing anything that moves that looks vaguely human and is able to give me consent. Transsexuals also don't fit your criteria at all, and neither do "queers".

It sounds like your criteria would have been somewhat applicable back when it was just the GLB movement, but you're some 118 (or 46, if we choose to pretend that America is the world) years late for that. We've added quite a few letters of the alphabet to the once-simple movement, and so your oversimplified conditions for who gets to join and who doesn't no longer reflect to reality.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2015, 07:26:32 AM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

*

Offline Ghost Spaghetti

  • *
  • Posts: 908
  • Don't look in that mirror. It's absolutely furious
    • View Profile
Re: LGBTQIAA
« Reply #26 on: November 05, 2015, 09:22:45 AM »
You exclusively like men and women, that is what makes you bisexual. Trans* is about gender not sexuality, so the exclusivity argument doesn't really apply. The definition of Queer changes (by definition) from person to person.

Exclusivity in sexuality is only 'important' for putting labels on people, so since it's labels we're discussing, it's relevant. if a man fancies men  but also fancies women, I'd argue his non-exclusivity of male preference excludes him from being Gay but accept that he's Bi.

If you, as a man, fancy your sister but you also fancy other women, I'd argue you're straight.

Obviously people are free to label themselves how they like (there are men who have sex with men who insist they're straight) but for this discussion, I'm taking the definitions fairly strictly.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9923
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: LGBTQIAA
« Reply #27 on: November 06, 2015, 09:49:20 PM »
You appear to be ignoring the Kinsey scale completely in your "strict" definitions. Again, using definitions and concepts that are decades out of date is really not helping the discussion.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

*

Offline Ghost Spaghetti

  • *
  • Posts: 908
  • Don't look in that mirror. It's absolutely furious
    • View Profile
Re: LGBTQIAA
« Reply #28 on: November 09, 2015, 01:53:50 PM »
Not at all.

The discussion was regarding 'incestophiles.' If someone fancies their relative but also is attracted to other people, I'd be sceptical over their claim to be incestophiles - we don't generally add every fetish and kink to the LGBT... label, do we? If so, then perhaps Thork has a point and the label is simply meaningless.

However, if they are attracted to their relatives 1) because they're relatives and 2) have little to no interest in non-family sexual partners, then I could begin to accept that Incestophiles could be a separate sexual subgroup. I think that point 2 is important only for the discussion of definitions. After all, if a woman claimed to be a lesbian but had a long history of male partners, still drooled over male partners, and still enjoyed the odd encounter with men, would the 'lesbian' label be appropriate? Obviously she'd be free to call herself what she liked, but I'd suggest that she would be better described as bi.